Rural Commuter Rail

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@roger1818,

Quite the contrary, we have said we seek OC-Transpo's participation in a consortium approach to whole-region transit integration.

What they'd be abandoning is an Ottawa-only perspective, in favour of a seeing that Ottawa is the nucleus of Canada's Capital.

Except that OC Transpo is primarily funded by taxpayers in the urban area of Ottawa. If the federal government wants to introduce a different model of funding that's fine, but until then you can't expect the city of Ottawa (or any other municipality) to abandon the interests of its residents.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by McC

Don’t GO trains run backwards and forwards? I’m pretty sure I’ve ridden the Lakeshore West line on a train that was being pushed by a rear-facing locomotive.

No. It looks like it is running backwards because the engine is at the back, but the rear coach on the train has a cab at the end of it, so the engineer is facing forwards and is controlling the engine by remote control. This is called push–pull operation. For GO (and all other commuter lines that I know of that use push-pull operation), this transition is done at the end of the line when train is empty and the engineer has lots of time to switch to remote (or local) mode and walk to the other end of the train, not in the middle of the route when the train is full of passengers.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Except that OC Transpo is primarily funded by taxpayers in the urban area of Ottawa. If the federal government wants to introduce a different model of funding that's fine, but until then you can't expect the city of Ottawa (or any other municipality) to abandon the interests of its residents.

Exactly. A transit authority is only responsible for its jurisdiction. For OC Transpo, that is only the Urban and Rural Transit Areas within the City of Ottawa. In the case of the Rural Transit Areas, the residents pay reduced taxes with the expectation that they will receive reduced service. Their primary mandate it to those in the Urban Transit Area.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Not at all. All the existing legislation is in place, and has been for a very long time. As soon as an interprovincial railway is approved, it's covered by default under Section 92(10)(a) of the Constitution.

CTA has already ruled that sections of the Lachute subdivision (to Montebello)do not fall under Federal Jurisdiction. It is not an interprovincial railway.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/82-r-2012
CTA has already ruled on the discontinuance of the Maniwaki subdivision (to Wakefield), thus it would also not fall under Federal Jurisdiction. It is not an interprovincial railway.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/95-r-2017
I understand that the Beachburg Subdivision (to Bristol) has been officially discontinued (the tracks have been removed). It therefore is no longer under Federal Jurisdiction. It is not an interprovincial railway. I can't find a specific decision document but at link below you will see CN Rail from Nepean to Portage du Fort, miles 14.5 to 59.40 dated 2013-08-06 which I believe to be the Beachburg Subdivision.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/notices-rail-line-discontinuance

This is also done by default under section 138 of the Canada Transportation Act. The Agency only needs to step in when a railway company fails to abide by 138.

Section 138 simply states that you "may apply" for access, and that the CTA "may grant" you access. It makes no reference to priority access, equal access, timely access, or anything of that sort, nor does it state that it "will" or "shall" grant access.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/page-20.html

There will be multiple investors, and many risk-managed steps.

And yet not one has chosen to invest to date. MOOSE has been stuck for several years attempting to find an investor to put forward the funds for a proper feasibility study let alone for the creation of a railway company.

Morrisons Quarry is the only current contact that wanted to go public at this stage.

I go back to a question I asked earlier which was not answered. Who pays whom in that arrangement. Is Morrison's Quarry actually going to pay a subscription fee for station rights or is it MOOSE going to be paying Morrison's for the use of its land for a trainyard.

I suspect that there will be a number of other situations where MOOSE needs the station more than the station needs MOOSE, leading to situations where MOOSE may be in the position to pay the station owner rather than the other way around.

I note in The Canada Transportation Act 138(3) that if MOOSE were to be granted access to stations owned by the another railway company then they (ie: MOOSE) "shall pay compensation".

[McC]

Originally Posted by roger1818

No. It looks like it is running backwards ...

cool beans, thanks.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/95-r-2017
I understand that the Beachburg Subdivision (to Bristol) has been officially discontinued (the tracks have been removed). It therefore is no longer under Federal Jurisdiction. It is not an interprovincial railway. I can't find a specific decision document but at link below you will see CN Rail from Nepean to Portage du Fort, miles 14.5 to 59.40 dated 2013-08-06 which I believe to be the Beachburg Subdivision.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/notices-rail-line-discontinuance

The difference between the Beachburg sub and the other sections of track is that CN is still in ownership of the corridor (I believe). I can't imagine any reason why CN would be opposed to new tracks being laid in the corridor, and since it does cross into Quebec, could be turned back into an interprovincial railway.

CTA has already ruled that sections of the Lachute subdivision (to Montebello)do not fall under Federal Jurisdiction. It is not an interprovincial railway.
https://otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/82-r-2012

Has the STO / mayor of Gatineau voiced any opinion on MOOSE or the use of these tracks? Just wondering.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The difference between the Beachburg sub and the other sections of track is that CN is still in ownership of the corridor (I believe). I can't imagine any reason why CN would be opposed to new tracks being laid in the corridor, and since it does cross into Quebec, could be turned back into an interprovincial railway.

I'm sure CN would be happy to sell the land to Moose (or any other entity).

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I'm sure CN would be happy to sell the land to Moose (or any other entity).

If MOOSE wants to buy this land AND lay track along it, I think their current budget of $20M just isn't going to cut it. It's about a 50km long stretch of land that currently is owned by CN and requires new track.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

If MOOSE wants to buy this land AND lay track along it, I think their current budget of $20M just isn't going to cut it. It's about a 50km long stretch of land that currently is owned by CN and requires new track.

Yes, this is why it is still owned by CN.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

If MOOSE wants to buy this land AND lay track along it, I think their current budget of $20M just isn't going to cut it. It's about a 50km long stretch of land that currently is owned by CN and requires new track.

I believe when the tracks were lifted MOOSE stated that they would have to allocate more money to relaying tracks.

In any case, I'm pretty sure MOOSE is willing to spend the money to relay track along that corridor.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes, this is why it is still owned by CN.

Yeah, that and ground pollution.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I'm sure CN would be happy to sell the land to Moose (or any other entity).

The MOOSE plan has been around since at least 2011 (see link below), yet CN chose to discontinue the rail line in 2013 and to tear out the rails over the following year. Do you think that CN would have taken those actions if they honestly thought there was any potential to sell or lease the line to MOOSE?

The CTA was also aware of MOOSE's concept and yet they allowed the discontinuance of that line. Once again, do you think the CTA would have authorized the discontinuance and removal of rails if they thought that there was any potential in the MOOSE proposal?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-area-commuter-rail-gathers-steam-1.1003316

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

The MOOSE plan has been around since at least 2011 (see link below), yet CN chose to discontinue the rail line in 2013 and to tear out the rails over the following year. Do you think that CN would have taken those actions if they honestly thought there was any potential to sell or lease the line to MOOSE?

The CTA was also aware of MOOSE's concept and yet they allowed the discontinuance of that line. Once again, do you think the CTA would have authorized the discontinuance and removal of rails if they thought that there was any potential in the MOOSE proposal?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-area-commuter-rail-gathers-steam-1.1003316

Yes. That was around the time Pontiac County and Pembroke wanted to set up their own commuter system, as well as trying to bring back industry to their area (by using rail as some kind of persuasion).

The rails used on the Beachburg sub were a lot more valuable than you might think. They were continuously welded rather than just bolted together. Continuous welded rail can be reused since it can be cut and transported in long strips and reused elsewhere (without the need to re-weld them as much). As this post on the Beachburg Subdivision blog points out, if the track was not continuous welded, it likely would have been left in place (since it would have been a waste of money to remove garbage track).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

The MOOSE plan has been around since at least 2011 (see link below), yet CN chose to discontinue the rail line in 2013 and to tear out the rails over the following year. Do you think that CN would have taken those actions if they honestly thought there was any potential to sell or lease the line to MOOSE?

The CTA was also aware of MOOSE's concept and yet they allowed the discontinuance of that line. Once again, do you think the CTA would have authorized the discontinuance and removal of rails if they thought that there was any potential in the MOOSE proposal?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-area-commuter-rail-gathers-steam-1.1003316

As I think I have noted before, companies, municipalities, etc. can't really be expected to wait around for an indefinite period of time.

This is an ongoing theme (we have seen it with several proposals related to the CP line to Peterborough). Somebody looks at a google map, sees a railway and assumes it can be easily re-purposed. In reality a lot of these lines are in terrible condition and require hundreds of millions of upgrades. I don't know if you remember the early days of the o-train, the rides were pretty rough before they replaced all of the track.

So in that sense I don't think it matters much whether the track is ripped up or not. Any passenger service capable of being comfortable at useful speeds (Moose or another proponent) would probably require the installation of new track anyway.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Has the STO / mayor of Gatineau voiced any opinion on MOOSE or the use of these tracks? Just wondering.

I've barely ever heard a peep about MOOSE on the Gatineau side, from either politicians or the media.

[Allandale25]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I've barely ever heard a peep about MOOSE on the Gatineau side, from either politicians or the media.

Potvin said a few pages back that he had met with the re-elected Mayor of Hull who expressed interest in more transit connections across the River. In comments to the media after the election, he specifically said "LRT" which isn't what MOOSE is proposing. They want to use heavy rail.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

Potvin said a few pages back that he had met with the re-elected Mayor of Hull who expressed interest in more transit connections across the River. In comments to the media after the election, he specifically said "LRT" which isn't what MOOSE is proposing. They want to use heavy rail.

Actually they want to use Commuter Rail. From Wikipedia:

North America, the American Public Transportation Association defines a heavy rail system as an electric railway with the capacity to handle a heavy volume of traffic. The term is often used to distinguish it from light rail systems, which usually handle a smaller volume of passengers.

In North America, heavy rail can also refer to rapid transit, when referring to systems with heavier passenger loadings than light rail systems, but distinct from commuter rail and intercity rail systems. It is characterized by high-speed, passenger rail cars running in separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded.

Such passenger rail cars are almost always electrically driven, with power either drawn from an overhead line or an electrified third rail.

Neither definition sound like what Moose wants to use.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Actually they want to use Commuter Rail. From Wikipedia:

It is still heavy rolling stock.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is still heavy rolling stock.

Yes it is heavy. Even heavier than heavy rail rolling stock, which is actually not that heavy.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Actually they want to use Commuter Rail. From Wikipedia:

I'm no expert here, but I think these terms get mixed up between what type of vehicles are getting used, and what type of service is being provided.

Regarding service, I believe that technically, the type of service that MOOSE wants to provide is "Regional Rail".

"Regional rail typically operates throughout the day but often at low frequency" (eg: once per hour..), "whereas commuter rail provides a high-frequency service."

As per linked document below, MOOSE intends to "provide train service to stations approximately every hour from 5:30 am to midnight" (pg 6)
https://www.letsgomoose.ca/wp-content/up..._CertificateOfFitness_2016-11-25bPDF.pdf

Part of the problem with the MOOSE plan (amongst many) is that the movement of people from the rural areas around Ottawa really requires commuter rail, that is more frequent service at peak hours rather than this hourly service all day, every day. In my mind, hourly is not frequent enough to attract a lot of people during peak commuting times, and really not necessary at other times. Seriously, how many people are going out to Smith Falls at 10pm during the week or to Bristol at 2pm on a Saturday.

Now, to be fair, within North America we tend to use the two terms interchangeably ".Regional rail does not exist in this sense in the United States, so the term "regional rail" has become synonymous with commuter rail there, although the two are more clearly defined in Europe."

As a side note. Joseph Potvin has indicated several times that the amount of passengers is irrelevant, so it's probably not an issue to him that trains run empty. Since the funding comes from the property base it doesn't matter how efficient the service is in regards to filling the seats. The only efficiency MOOSE considers is how efficiently they can extract revenue from the property base. Riders are an "externality", and as Joseph puts it

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

"This is is deliberate. It is because I have not seen any evidence that a large enough proportion of any population will care enough about ecosystem and resource degradation to make the lifestyle changes that have any hope of reducing or reversing the degradation."

[Charles5]

Joseph Potvin,

Three questions:

1. What frequency of service does MOOSE intend to provide?

2. How many trains does MOOSE intend to purchase?

3. Does your financial estimate for both upfront capital expenditures and for annual operating costs account for this number of trains?

The issue:
In your Letter of Application to CTA of 29 Jun 16 you claim that MOOSE will operate a 400km (para 20) network over 3 lines (Annex F). There will be approximately 50 stations (para 20). You indicate that you will use 6 trains to do that. (Annex J, para 3b) and that you will provide hourly service (page 6 of update 25 Nov 16).
To do that you would need each train to complete its run from end to end of each line in under an hour, give some time to conduct your “pit stop program” at the end of each line (Annex J, para 4.2), and then head out again in the opposite direction.

This is obviously impossible. Some simple math:

Assuming each line is 130km long.
Assume 15 stops per line and each stop reduces travel time by 2 minutes due to deceleration, offloading/onloading passengers, and acceleration. Total time lost at stations = 30 min.
To get from one end of the line to another in an hour would require the train to travel over 300km/hr. (60 min/hr -15x2 min/stop – 5min pitstop)=35min leaving 25min or 0.416 hours for travel. 130km/0.416hr = 312km/hr.

A more likely scenario is about a 3 hr turn around. This would give you a much more comfortable 3 minutes loss per station (45 min total), a 15 minute pit stop at each end, and 2 hours to travel 130km equating to an average of 65km/hr (remember we’re dealing with passing tracks, bridges, etc). In my mind that means you would require at least 18 trains and would probably need another 2 or 3 for ongoing maintenance issues.